THE MORAL MATRIX FALLICY

Fundamental traits that rule our lives have not been learned; they have evolved as part of out chemistry. ‘Greed’ for, example, is a word we used to describe success in competition. If rootlets of a plant in poor soil are equal in their ability to absorb nutrients, all the plants will struggle to survive. If the nucleic acids in cells of one of the rootlet has a mutation that allows more rapid transport of a vital mineral from the soil into the plant, that plant will have a better chance of survival. Obviously, the same concept of competition applies to both plants and animals. There is a body of complex scientific information accumulated over a couple of hundred years embodied in this statement.

The story of cell structure and the relationship of the cell to the environment suggest there are two different environments separated by cell walls and there is an evolved mechanism relating the two. Within limits, the external environment is uncontrolled while the internal environment of the cell is metabolically controlled. In addition, a nucleic acid mutation affects protein structure. This statement implies that the reader knows the exceedingly complex story of nucleic acid transcription and inscription. There may or may not have been a preexisting transport protein in the cell membranes before a mutation enhanced the efficiency of and existing protein to act as a transporter of the nutrient in question. Again, cytologists can explain this mechanism in terms of chemistry and we can understand what the word ‘greed’ means in that context although most would object to saying the cell of one rootlet is greedy when compared to another. Certainly, adding the adjective ‘unconscious’  to greed would be wrong because you can not have “unconscious” acts without having “conscious” acts  and you can not be conscious without a nervous system, which is just more chemistry.

Hierarchy dominance or pecking order, like greed, is an innate trait that guides our behavior. Ordered structure is a reflection of biological variability. The more efficient rootlet will do better than the less efficient rootlet. The implication is that the metabolism of a cell is result of an extremely complex interaction of chemical pathways in which thousands of mutations have taken place over billions of years. Some mutations contributed to survival while others did not. The ones that did not would either not be reproduce in the next generation of cells or lead to the extinction of the plant species thus are lost. Therefore, being the greediest is the mindless result of synergistic integration of genes associated with the absorbed and utilization the most nutrients; hence the greediest are the strongest in a generic sense.

Xenophobia, like greed, is an innate trait we could not survive if we did not have it. In social parlance, xenophobia is fear of anything perceived as being foreign or strange. Some definitions include the idea that xenophobia is the “irrational or unreasoned fear”. This definition may apply within our species and but only applies in the very limited sense of social intercourse. Clearly, in the complex biological world of evolution, the word ‘irrational’ does not apply. Xenophobia more appropriately applies between species. It is an innate emotion. Fear or “phobia” is the synergistic outgrowth of self-preservation. Fear would have no meaning if there were not some consequence of not being afraid—perhaps, pain and suffering. What fear does is give meaning to being the strongest or the most powerful.

Survival of the fittest is a cruel process. As humans, we flatter ourselves in thinking we are the only species that appreciates the fact we can die; therefore, we give special meaning to life. Our success in shaping our environment has allowed us to give meaning to quality of life; we do not have to struggle every minute to meet the innate needs to survival as individuals and as a species: greed, peck-order, and xenophobia. We grew to recognize the raw cruelty of the Darwinian inspired “survival of the fittest”. In addition, we developed, then learned, and actively moved a number of feelings, senses, and emotions such as empathy, sympathy, pride, shame, and jealousy out of the unconscious and into the conscious realm. More and more, we are allowing these things to override our “fundamental” or innate senses. However, we the advent of these sensitivities we recognize “quality of life” as something above and beyond just raw survival, which contributes to a growing sense of altruism or concern for others. I use the term ‘growing’ because over time, we are acquiring a sharpened sense of altruism as part of our humanization. Some claim the rudiments of altruism exist in our bestial beginning; however, scientists have trouble clearly documenting it as a well-conserved trait.

When we refer to altruism as an ethical doctrine, we introduce the concept of morality into evolution.  We do the same when we introduce the concept of “moral” order into society, which formed as the result of an innate compulsion to live in families, tribes, states, and nations. We arrive at such reasoned expressions as group loyalty is morally correct, liberty or freedom to act as an individual is a virtue, society has a moral order, and sanctity has something to do with survival. These expressions describe religion inspired feeling about an overriding political “moral matrix” some of us have created without recognizing its true biological foundation. We have taken the moral matrix out of some sort of vacuum and have believed that is the “morally correct” thing to do. Certainly, these things that help frame social structure have something to do with survival of society beyond gregariousness but are far from being the driving force of greed, hierarchy dominance, xenophobia, and altruism. Some of the more radical among us have even ascribed morality to political party positions, which, for example, was the inspiration for Ann Coulter’s expression, “Godless Liberal”, meaning being free of the restraints of sanctity.      

Our social order is inborn; we base our politics on hierarchy dominance, which is innate. Children are born greedy but few parents teach them to remain greedy yet they grow up having different degrees of greediness; it is instinctive. We cannot survive as humans without greed; however, we are obligated to benefit others only because some of us have learned that there is more to human survival than just preserving a heartbeat, breathing and reproductive capacity mindlessly instilled over tens of millions of years. Perhaps, dating from 2.5 million years ago, when according to physical anthropologists the human brain started to enlarge, quality of life became more and more important with the result that altruism becomes as instinctive as it is today and stands as a worthy rival of greed. We shape our culture by moral punishment framed on doing what each of us instinctively thinks is best for our quality of life and not the time proven trail and error of natural selection. Perhaps there is danger in reducing the yin-yang of life in to a battle between survival verses pleasure. 

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated